First Day Feedback

CriticalMammal · 2015-05-07 04:12:33

It was my first day playing, and I figured it could be nice to write up some initial thoughts about the game from a new player's perspective. I'll outline some of the basic strategies I've been able to kind of pick up on, and include how certain aspects of the game made me feel and react initially.

Preparing To Play
----------------------
I was a fan of previous games by Rohrer, so when I heard of this game (back before the graphics were changed) I was intrigued. I kind of picked up on the basic rules and how the game worked, but haven't actually had any hands on time until the recent public opening. I watched the "how to play" video, watched a different and lengthier video that demonstrated it a bit more, and read the brief guide here: https://www.reddit.com/r/cordialminuet/ … egy_guide/

This means I didn't go into the game completely blind. I knew what I was getting into (to some extent) and did a little preparation before starting. I'm generally a little hesitant with putting money on the line, and I'm not a fan of leaving things to chance. That's partially why this game was appealing though, due to its reliance more on strategy and learning your opponent's tendencies rather than luck of the draw.

[New Game] -> [Create]
--------------------------
I've only played games at $0.01 so far. But man oh man, even though there's very little on the line it still adds something special to each game. I really like this aspect, that as long as I play smart, I shouldn't have to invest more than my initial $2 deposit if I just want to play for fun. For a game all about risk, it has a surprising amount of respect for what I invest in the game. There's no real pressure to bite off more than I can chew, and it lets me play at my own pace and risk. I also don't feel like I'll lose because I was dealt a "bad board", I'll loose because I couldn't predict my opponent's moves. Loosing and winning feels earned for the most part (especially over time), and that feeling is amplified more by the real money aspect.

I really admire how anonymous everything is in-game, but at the same time... I sometimes yearn to be able to communicate with more than my bets and board moves mid-match. I think I'm fine with not being able to track players and whatnot after the games are over, but in-game I sometimes feel... restricted. I'll predict my opponent's next move flawlessly, or have them play a smart bet against me... and will sometimes smile and mutter to myself "Oh you clever person you". But it feels hollow, they'll never know my reaction to that last great move and I'll never know theirs. I feel like there needs to be some very simple system of communication mid-match, like a way to express yourself briefly after a turn has ended. I've never played it, but Hearthstone comes to mind for having little ways to interact like this in a similar format. I'm also a fan of the Demon's/Dark Souls series and how they do anonymous interactions with gestures, it adds quite a lot to each encounter but still retains an air of mystery.

I do wonder if the deepness of the anonymous interactions may end up hurting the community a bit. It's no doubt somewhat unique, but it also feels like it's hard to retain a sense of the community surrounding the game because of it. Another thing that occurred to me while opening up the game once more, was that I noticed a game available for $6,666.99. I'll probably never participate in a game of that caliber, but I'd be incredibly interested in being able to observe it from the shadows through some kind of in-game spectator mode.

Strategies I've Witnessed and Used So Far
--------------------------------------------------
I probably have about a ~70% success rate at the moment. To me "success" means I leave with more than I arrived with. I'm not some amazing player, but I've picked up on a couple of things that might be useful.

Even just after my first day I already was able to pick up on one memorable strategy I saw an opponent using frequently (also mentioned in the guide I linked above). It's the "give them the row with the lowest high number" strategy. It's fairly easy to counter once you pick up on it, especially if they rely on it heavily. The goal for them is to try and knock your potential score window down so that by the end, there's less chance of you being able to bluff your way to a win. The person I played was super predictable using this and I could almost always give myself fairly good numbers by looking for that row.

I leave when I'm ahead and I feel uncomfortable predicting their moves. If I've got > 140 or so chips and facing an unpredictable player I normally will leave while I've got the advantage. Even though I only play for pennies haha, I play cautious like this as a way to practice for games where higher stakes may be involved and might be hard-ish to walk away from.

When I'm running out of time for a move my general "go to" quick strategy (if the first turn has already passed), is to observe the numbers in their previously chosen rows. I generally want to give them the columns that line up with the largest numbers in their previously chosen rows. This is because if they've already cancelled out a large number like a 32 for themselves by selecting that row for me... I want to exploit that. It means that the rest of the numbers are more likely to give them lower amounts, though you still have to be careful of other large numbers in the same column. It's a good little way for me to make a quick decision if needed, and it's easy to layer this tactic with other strategies. Of course, when selecting a column for yourself the process is the complete opposite. Look for the smallest numbers they've already cancelled out, and pick those columns since you're more likely to get a higher point distribution.

I'm a bad liar, but that's okay. Even though I can't bluff for my life, I can still out play my opponents and get myself in positions where I'm confident I have the advantage. I fold when I make mistakes and can't predict my opponent right, rather than continuing on blindly. This has the added benefit of giving me more time to learn them before I've lost much. This is mostly why I like this game right now. I feel like I can actually sit down and learn someone's move habits rather than relying more on luck and understanding how they bet. Understanding their betting is a part of it too, but I enjoy being able to intentionally out play opponents mostly through learning the board moves.

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-07 05:40:01

Thanks for this great post!

It sounds like "it worked" in terms of the path into playing and learning the game. There's always a worry for any somewhat hard game that it will be too hard for new people to get into, especially a competitive game like this. You do have the benefit of loads of new players to play against right now. If you had come in a few weeks ago, you'd have been swimming in a pool full of sharks. Though most experienced players have moved on from penny games, so the stakes have a natural tendency toward good matchmaking.

As far as the anonymity goes, I hear you on the hollowness, but anonymity is an aesthetic theme in a number of my games. There has been some talk of some opaque channel for communication... like each player could pick from one of 5 tarot cards to display a mood... or something. But I haven't ever settled on anything really good.

This chat room helps a lot in terms of community:

http://us19.chatzy.com/88872904022107

Often times, people arrange games in there at some named stake and then chat as they play.

In terms of aesthetics, the dehumanization of the opponent is really important to me. It's a very strange thing to celebrate a big, profitable win when your profit means someone else's crushing loss. I literally want you to see them as L'Abisso, faceless and nameless, almost like a mysterious part of the machine. When the chime sounds, as someone joins your game, I want that urgent sense of nervous anticipation, and that's fueled by the anonymity. Finally, I really like the idea of communication that happens through the game mechanics itself. Learning a new game is quite a bit like learning a new language. A medium for direct mind-to-mind communication, albeit combative communication.

computermouth · 2015-05-07 05:57:58

Tarot cards sounds pretty neat.

.. · 2015-05-07 11:54:59

Yes, being able to spectate games would be great! I find that televised poker, where you can see the cards all players have, can be very entertaining. But revealing the numbers the players have would create a huge risk of cheating. I wonder what it would be like to watch a game and not know either player's picks. I think it would require more than twice the amount of mental arithmetic than just trying to predict your opponent, as you have even less information about what each player doesn't have. Still, ought to be watchable even if you focus just on betting.
Delaying the "broadcast" until the whole game (not just one round) is over is another option.

Regarding other forms of communication, how about something inspired by how there are different ways to perform physical actions like betting: do you throw in your chips aggressively, or mechanically, or as if reluctantly? (I don't know how to translate that into the game... click and drag to push/throw your chips would be both ridiculous and amusing. Actually, it might be possible to show some information about the opponent's mouse movements?) Right now we have the proxy of the length of time you take to bet or pick a column, but you can't even see how long the other person took to bet if you take longer, which is a pity. I think "COMMIT" starts flashing immediately after they pick columns, but I'm not sure.

Regarding bluffing, jere gave excellent advice in that guide you linked to. In particular many players will simply refuse to fold. They're playing badly, but you need to figure this out before you attempt to bluff big. They are many of these players now with all the new players. You really do need to adjust your play to your opponent, but it sounds like simply bluffing less would be a good start.

The "pick column with lowest high number" strategy is very common. I like to use it just to make opponents worry that I'll continue using it. If you only do it 40% of the time many players will overreact to it, picking columns too predictably. (I've seen research showing that most humans are bad at working out optimal ratios for mixed strategies at least in certain contexts.)
Regarding that "go-to" picking strategy, I categorise players into those so bad they don't even think to do that, those that do that, those that check whether their opponent does that, those that double-guess the former, etc.

Last edited by .. (2015-05-07 12:11:59)

Dan_Dan84 · 2015-05-07 12:47:30

Nice post, CM! Welcome to the party.

CriticalMammal wrote:

I've only played games at $0.01 so far. But man oh man, even though there's very little on the line it still adds something special to each game. I really like this aspect, that as long as I play smart, I shouldn't have to invest more than my initial $2 deposit if I just want to play for fun.

That's true, but I have a feeling you'll eventually find penny games dull-- especially if you ever go up to dime games (10X what you were playing before!). It's a strange feeling, because it's all still pennies. There's been a lot of talk around here before about the "valuable penny" phenomenon-- a real difference from casinos, which make you think nothing of throwing down a piece of plastic worth $25.

The role of money in this game is still not something I totally understand. Yes, betting money can make anything more exciting (from a cockfight to a coin toss), but some CM hands can be really exciting-- even when it's only pennies on the line.

CriticalMammal wrote:

I really admire how anonymous everything is in-game, but at the same time... I sometimes yearn to be able to communicate with more than my bets and board moves mid-match.

Me too, but when I join the chat room, it's usually after a game, to say gg, to ask if someone was indeed bluffing, to tell them they played me like a violin... Jason's idea of tarot cards, or something like coloured stones or buttons, just to communicate something would be nice. But there's something about the simple, minimalist aesthetic of the game that is nice, too...

CriticalMammal wrote:

Another thing that occurred to me while opening up the game once more, was that I noticed a game available for $6,666.99. I'll probably never participate in a game of that caliber, but I'd be incredibly interested in being able to observe it from the shadows through some kind of in-game spectator mode.

Ah yes, possibly CM's most famous player.

Jason has mentioned that, post-launch, he plans to run some more tournaments, like he did when the game was first opened to private testing. If he chooses a tournament that involves knock-outs and a figure structure, it would be cool to watch the later rounds between the best players. Perhaps a client that displays both players' screens, after a board is completed. Then again, some players may not want to be watched, as it would give away their strategies.

CriticalMammal wrote:

I probably have about a ~70% success rate at the moment. To me "success" means I leave with more than I arrived with.

That's another interesting idea we've previously discussed: what "success" means. There have been games I fought back from almost losing, get back to just over 100, and leave, considering breaking even a success over losing everything. But is that victory? "Yay, I won 3/100ths of my buy-in..."

So is success reducing your opponent to zero? Winning at least half your buy-in? Or is it (like many people who gamble at casinos say) breaking even: essentially getting your entertainment for free?

CriticalMammal wrote:

I'm a bad liar, but that's okay. Even though I can't bluff for my life, I can still out play my opponents and get myself in positions where I'm confident I have the advantage. I fold when I make mistakes and can't predict my opponent right, rather than continuing on blindly. This has the added benefit of giving me more time to learn them before I've lost much. This is mostly why I like this game right now. I feel like I can actually sit down and learn someone's move habits rather than relying more on luck and understanding how they bet. Understanding their betting is a part of it too, but I enjoy being able to intentionally out play opponents mostly through learning the board moves.

Cordial Minuet is nothing if not strange and mysterious.

Dan_Dan84 · 2015-05-07 13:11:32

jasonrohrer wrote:

In terms of aesthetics, the dehumanization of the opponent is really important to me. It's a very strange thing to celebrate a big, profitable win when your profit means someone else's crushing loss. I literally want you to see them as L'Abisso, faceless and nameless, almost like a mysterious part of the machine.

This is actually something that really bothers me about the game.

I'm still floundering around at the lower end of the stakes range, so it hasn't affected me personally. But if I was playing higher stakes, I'd feel both happy at the win... and bad that someone just lost most or all of their buy-in... unless Canto, which removes some anonymity, told me it was a player who had already won a lot of money through CM. Then I wouldn't feel so bad.

And if I lost... The idea of some random person on the internet gloating over winning my $10... Blech.

I really love playing the game, but I'm still not sure what to make of the real money mechanic.

On a lighter note...

.. wrote:

Delaying the "broadcast" until the whole game (not just one round) is over is another option.

Why? Surely after the round is over, there's nothing gained by seeing what happened... Oh, I suppose someone could tell a player what her opponents' picks were, and whether she was bluffing or not. Hmm... But still, watching a game after it's completely done is not nearly as exciting as watching it as it unfolds, albeit one round behind.

Again, this is something we could discuss if the game really takes off. But yes, I think like watching poker, where you know the hole cards, it would be compelling to watch ("NO, YOU'VE FOLDED THE WINNING HAND!")

.. wrote:

Regarding bluffing, jere gave excellent advice in that guide you linked to. In particular many players will simply refuse to fold. They're playing badly, but you need to figure this out before you attempt to bluff big. They are many of these players now with all the new players. You really do need to adjust your play to your opponent, but it sounds like simply bluffing less would be a good start.

This is one of the first assessments I make of my opponent: Can he be bluffed or not? For me, pressing that "fold" button takes a lot of will power, and I don't think everybody can do it, especially if the pot has gotten fairly large. It's just easier to say "Oh yeah? I'll call that."

And as someone pointed out in the chat, people are more likely to call bluffs at lower stakes. When the stake is only a dime, there's a tendency to say "What the hell" and call. When it's $1+... you might re-think that.

Cobblestone · 2015-05-07 15:59:05

.. wrote:

Delaying the "broadcast" until the whole game (not just one round) is over is another option.

Dan_Dan84 wrote:

Why? Surely after the round is over, there's nothing gained by seeing what happened... Oh, I suppose someone could tell a player what her opponents' picks were, and whether she was bluffing or not. Hmm... But still, watching a game after it's completely done is not nearly as exciting as watching it as it unfolds, albeit one round behind.

I've been thinking of livestreaming CM, but I'd only do it with an 8 minute delay, since 8 minutes is roughly equivalent to an entire match. Getting to the end and seeing all of the numbers your opponent chose for themselves can reveal a lot of information about their picking and betting strategies. If an opponent were to ghost a broadcast with a delay that was only per round, they could gain an advantage. Granted it's probably hard to play and watch a broadcast, but honestly that's not information I want them to have. Maybe I'm just being paranoid!

I have to ask, would you really know that you're watching a delayed game? The match would appear to unfold in real-time for you. I could livestream a match I played a month ago and I'd think people would still be just as engaged. I might be wrong though.

jere · 2015-05-07 16:06:09

I'd like to stream CM, but I haven't found anything saying you can set a configurable delay on Twitch. Sounds like you can do so with 3rd party, paid software. If someone wants to correct me, please feel free.

Cobblestone · 2015-05-07 16:12:58

Open Broadcaster is free and has a stream delay setting. I haven't tried it yet, but it's something I've been meaning to do. I'll probably try it out on Saturday.

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-07 16:17:46

I've thought about this more over the past few days...

Spectating will NEVER be a built-in part of this game, sadly.

Even with a delay, too much information is revealed. When your opponent folds, the score that you have and the cells that you've won must be buried, forever. Even a week later, that should be a secret.

That means that spectator mode could only show the information available to both players, which isn't very much information at all about picks.

Yes, televised poker has hole cams, but that's part of the deal. It's like a new set of rules for the game. By playing televised poker, you agree that your opponents can learn your secrets afterward by watching the tape.

In normal poker, cards that go into the muck are forever buried.

jere · 2015-05-07 16:18:55

Oh, cool!

computermouth · 2015-05-07 16:20:40

I just tried Open Broadcaster. My girlfriend wants to start streaming, so I was looking into the freebies. It's pretty slick actually.

And jere, Twitch does let you set a delay, but the ability has to be given to you by twitch. which is weird. But apparently there's this: "OBS it is under broadcast settings "Delay (seconds)""

source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Twitch/comments … ay_slider/

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-07 16:26:34

Yeah, I guess if they turn delay on for you, they have to maintain a buffer for your video content on their server, so they are hesitant to let everyone start doing that.

CriticalMammal · 2015-05-07 16:39:36

.. wrote:

Regarding other forms of communication, how about something inspired by how there are different ways to perform physical actions like betting: do you throw in your chips aggressively, or mechanically, or as if reluctantly? (I don't know how to translate that into the game... click and drag to push/throw your chips would be both ridiculous and amusing. Actually, it might be possible to show some information about the opponent's mouse movements?) Right now we have the proxy of the length of time you take to bet or pick a column, but you can't even see how long the other person took to bet if you take longer, which is a pity. I think "COMMIT" starts flashing immediately after they pick columns, but I'm not sure.

I was tossing it over more in my head after I posted... and I do think that if something like this were added, it would need to be tied to the game's existing mechanics somehow. Otherwise it runs a very heavy risk of being really confusing for a new player. Like with the tarot card idea mentioned earlier, it'd be confusing to have visual elements cluttering the screen that don't impact the game directly. You'd be inclined to try and figure out their function and if your opponent started playing them you'd be all "Oh no, am I missing something? What do those cards do? Oh no Oh no Oh no".

I thought about mouse movements somehow being included also... though it may lead to a lot of unintentional information being shown about yourself going that route. It also comes with a trade-off where you might not be able to opt out of participating in that form of communication. Wouldn't want to undermine any current control over information players have, though there is something appealing about how varied your interactions could be.

Playing with sound more came to mind. But while it would be interesting building up some strange ritualistic audio with your opponent to a frenzy... it's got a number of issues. The current sound cues are pretty important, the chime entering a game and the ding when you're running out of time during a turn help notify. Having any constant background noise probably wouldn't work, because it's likely to break concentration and people would probably be inclined to turn off the volume (meaning they miss the game notification sounds). Any additional sound cues coming from either player would most likely need to be similar in length to the current notification sounds. I would imagine this being like... optionally being able to select a preset sound clip to play during the betting phase, so as to not distract during the tile selection process.

The only other thing that came to mind was playing with color somehow. Colors can be kind of ambiguous in meaning and have to be interpreted to some degree. Blue might mean calm/zen to me but might mean depression/regret to you. I kind of like this fuzzy aspect, but again, messing with these aspects of the game could lead to confusion (especially for new players) if it's not directly related to the game mechanics. The thought briefly crossed my mind of players being able to change their own color on the board each turn haha, it'd be a confusing mess. Other variations of the idea kind of float around being able to change a blotch of color in your chip amount corner or something. Probably with the similar rough-ish painted look the board uses for rows/columns.

.. wrote:

Delaying the "broadcast" until the whole game (not just one round) is over is another option.

Agreed, there's just not a good way I can think of to know people aren't cheating without making sure that people can't see a game until after it's over. Dan_Dan84 also mentioned higher level players might not want to be watched, otherwise their strategies will be on display. It's a tough scenario, but it does add an interesting angle to the high-end game anonymity (since people are less likely to watch lower stake games). Who saw the game? How long will my game be on display? Should I start adopting new strategies?

Oh, just read Jason's more recent post though. Hmm... I suppose it's a good point about losing your opportunity to find out their picks if you fold. And it seems like certain players may end up streaming and whatnot anyway so there's likely to be some external stuff where players can feed off of the souls willing to reveal themselves haha. Excited to see how that aspect plays out.

Cobblestone · 2015-05-07 17:06:17

CriticalMammal wrote:

it seems like certain players may end up streaming and whatnot anyway so there's likely to be some external stuff where players can feed off of the souls willing to reveal themselves

Between Jason's post and this sentence, I'm now heavily reconsidering my plans to livestream!
I might be safe, though, because you all don't know who I am or what name I stream under.
...or do you? DO YOU?!?!

jasonrohrer · 2015-05-07 17:31:05

Well, someone could remember playing you in a certain way, then watch your live stream and make the correlation.

Obviously, I WANT people to live stream and such, to promote the game. I don't think the risk is that big, and I may do it myself at some point, almost as a way of baiting people. Like, "Watch me play for high stakes, live."

However, there's no way that I can build something like this into the game. A fold is a fold, a bluff is a bluff, etc.

Chris has talked a lot about spectation in SpyParty, and that game obviously suffers from similar problems, especially for the spy role. On the other hand, money is not on the line, so he has more room to play with it.

.. · 2015-05-07 17:51:34

I never meant to suggest that all games should be watchable. Of course it reveals a lot about how you play (for a fraction of the price of playing you normally!), so would have to be opt in. Building it into the game is really just a matter of convenience (though audio commentary would be missing anyway). If anyone ever implements a second (web-based?) client I anticipate they would add it.

In the meantime I really hope to see some players stream their games. High stakes, critical tournament games, and the best players would all be interesting. Unfortunately those are exactly the players who may have people stalking them!

CriticalMammal wrote:

It also comes with a trade-off where you might not be able to opt out of participating in that form of communication

Exactly like in-person betting games! You can't hide the fact that it took you a long time to decide whether to bet either. I feel that knowing the amount of time it took the opponent to act adds a lot to the game! You're right about adding confusing cosmetic elements though.

Last edited by .. (2015-05-07 17:53:44)

CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

#1 2015-05-07 04:12:33

First Day Feedback

#2 2015-05-07 05:40:01

Re: First Day Feedback

#3 2015-05-07 05:57:58

Re: First Day Feedback

#4 2015-05-07 11:54:59

Re: First Day Feedback

#5 2015-05-07 12:47:30

Re: First Day Feedback

#6 2015-05-07 13:11:32

Re: First Day Feedback

#7 2015-05-07 15:59:05

Re: First Day Feedback

#8 2015-05-07 16:06:09

Re: First Day Feedback

#9 2015-05-07 16:12:58

Re: First Day Feedback

#10 2015-05-07 16:17:46

Re: First Day Feedback

#11 2015-05-07 16:18:55

Re: First Day Feedback

#12 2015-05-07 16:20:40

Re: First Day Feedback

#13 2015-05-07 16:26:34

Re: First Day Feedback

#14 2015-05-07 16:39:36

Re: First Day Feedback

#15 2015-05-07 17:06:17

Re: First Day Feedback

#16 2015-05-07 17:31:05

Re: First Day Feedback

#17 2015-05-07 17:51:34

Re: First Day Feedback

Board footer